EA, the publisher of SimCity, has seen fit to up the annoyance factor on legally purchased copies of the game by requiring an internet connection to play the latest title in the series, even in single player mode, and funneling the users through its horrendous Origin "service." Not only that, but players' games are saved online, so if you lose the connection, not only will you be prevented from playing your purchased game, but you'll be back at whatever point you were at when your service died.

What will happen to the game if I am playing and lose my internet connection - will the game still be playable and update the servers when my internet connection resumes or will it pause and wait for the connection?

As I have unreliable internet at times if I were to lose a connection and play for a while longer (assuming I would be able to continue to play) would my changes be saved locally in case my internet connection does not come back up before I need to stop playing (and then be uploaded when I next start the game).

I love what the game is looking like and look forward to the multi-player region games, but as you can tell I am concerned about what happens if my internet connection decides to drop for a few hours.

"I actually just ran over to our online engineering team to get the latest info. We do handle "short" internet outages gracefully. Meaning, if your internet goes out while you're logged in and playing the game, we can can recover gracefully. You shouldn't notice a thing. "Short" is still being defined."

At least Katsarelis somewhat acknowledges that the term "short" is woefully undefined. And whether or not players "notice a thing" isn't really the sort of issue that should be getting sorted during an informal Q&A. While that answer was less than satisfactory, Kip's followup was downright laughable.

We will allow you to play for as long as we can preserve your game state. This will most likely be minutes.

My computer happens to have a hard drive that's suitable for preserving game state. Should I consider buying your game, or is it crippled to online-only?

It's not as though the "paying customers hate DRM" is a new development. It has been this way for years and paying customers have expressed their displeasure with being handed crippled software in exchange for perfectly functioning money, while those who have acquired the same software for free use the software much in the manner you would expect the paying customer to be able to: on his or her own terms, online connection or no. It's gotten bad enough that even EA's own employees are annoyed with DRM "solutions."

A helpful Redditor compiled all the anti-DRM comments from the AMA into an easy-to-read, linked, multi-author screed on the unpopularity of online-connection-required DRM. Perhaps SimCity's devs can run this up the chain to EA in the small hope that a list of disgruntled potential customers might persuade the publisher to drop the online/Origin requirement before SimCity's release in March. It's highly doubtful this will work, as EA's president has stated that all EA games will include "online applications and digital services." If one was optimistic and a bit naive, it almost sounds like EA wants a connected community that expands the fanbase through social media. If one is firmly grounded in reality, however, it's just another way to say "all games will include some form of online-only component DRM."

So, very possibly, no lessons will be learned. People will go and pirate themselves a working version of SimCity, which will lead EA to believe that EVEN MORE DRM is required for the next iteration, which will piss off the next set of gamers, leading to more cracked, functional versions downloaded, and so on, until either a.) all piracy is eradicated (thru some sort of black magic[k] ceremony involving Chris Dodd, Cary Sherman, the remaining members of the BSA and the exhumed corpse of Sonny Bono) or b.) EA (and companies like it) stop dumping crippled software on customers in hopes of making absolutely no discernible dent in piracy levels.

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Playing a pirated version could give others potential players the wrong idea it's worth buying. You still give them free publicity when you pirate, and you give them a reason to put DRM in the next version.

Re:

Re:

Not buing Sim City or any other game that has DRM, especially always online one.
Why should I pay for a cripled game when I can get a cracked one that is not cripled.
I want to pay and give money to EA and other publishers, but when I pay I WANT THE GAME ONLY, NO DRM SHIT, or you can keep your game I will keep my money and only EA will loose out.

Not only does it scare away purchases, it scares away people from using their purchases and buying their games in the future.

I got one DRM heavy online only game a year ago, Heroes of Might and Magic 6, and I've yet to install it despite it being a totally legal copy. And despite the fact that I have a great Fios internet connection from Verizon, simply because I've read too many stories about Ubisoft's own servers crashing frequently, rendering the game useless. And Heroes 6 is a game that's not even that popular compared to their other titles, which made the whole thing more pathetic for them.

Think I'll be buying expansion packs to Heroes 6 that Ubisoft released? Nope, not if I haven't even played the original yet. If Ubisoft releases a patch that undoes the DRM I'd instantly install and play it however, and almost certainly buy the expansion packs since I've been a long time fan of the series from before Ubisoft bought it up.

Re:

I love SimCity. I have the original (and the pirate) versions of SimCity 2 and 3000 WE. After trying SimCity 4 I decided 3000 was better and didn't buy it (yes, I tried via a 'shared' version). I'd try this new SimCity but really, with DRM? Not that my old ones don't have DRM, they do. But first I don't need an internet connection regardless of DRM and second the pirated version is fully unlocked. So in the end it's ok, I can install anywhere and play anywhere.

In fact, I haven't bought EA games for years now. I don't even bother to download the pirated versions. I did the stupidity of buying Assassin's Creed from Ubisoft a while back. Never again. I don't even bother downloading their games anymore, just as with EA. Blizzard has also joined the Ranks after Diablo III. I wonder, who is losing here, the file sharers or the companies?

Re: Re:

Since the Origin crap was created by EA I have not bough a single EA game, before Origin and invasive online DRM I bought all Need for Speed games, Crysis and several sport games from EA.
They could have has hundreds of $$$ from me by now but because of their stupidity with DRM they loose out and I can play other games like Dirt which has a lot less intrusive DRM and I don't need to be online to play it.

Ubisoft has lost a lot of my $ as well, but then again most of their PC ports of Splinter Cell and ghost Recon are complete shitpile of bugs, so not missing a lot there either. And I will not buy Anno 2070 until you remove Uplay crap from it.

Re: Re:

I just want to state fact that CD project red - developers of Witcher 2, removed DRM few weeks after the realise. They stated it before the release that they only wanted to reward players who bought the game - So they can play it before pirates will crack it anyway. Even if there wouldn't be a single player that had problems with registering his game cuz of DRM they would still remove DRM in few weeks after the realise.

So yeah, not all companies are evil creatures from Hell. At least our Polish one isn't.

Re: Re:

The difference here is, as long as you have the physical game and the physical console, you'd be able to play as much as you want, 5 to 10 to as many years as your console is serviceable/playable.

In comes the "only-online" shit that need EA's cloud service to remain alive. As soon as EA eventually closes due to their bad decisions, every single game they sucker you into buying will be worthless.

Re:

And the inability to customize games. My favorite game series has always been the ones that are easy to mod. Unreal, Half Life, Elder Scrolls are a few of them that have a huge amount of modding going on. Can't access most of that on a console.

Re:

Consoles are to limited. My favorite PC game series has always been the ones that are easy to mod. Unreal, Half Life, Elder Scrolls are a few of them that have a huge amount of modding going on. Can't access most of that on a console with the same games.

Re:

Yes, because console games don't have DRM at all. Please explain to me what XBL and PSN function as besides online services? Oh, that's right, DRM. Console games have DRM that works much in the same ways as PC DRM but are more pervasive and harder to get around, if that's even possible without crippling your console and getting it banned from those services.

Re: Re:

"Please explain to me what XBL and PSN function as besides online services?"

Can you name a game on these services that actually requires those for a single player game? Not online play (because, durr, an online requirement for an online game is common sense, not DRM), but a requirement where none should be? Because I can't think of one, and I played my 360 quite happily for several months when I didn't have a home internet connection.

There is DRM involved with games, but I'm yet to come across one that either installs spyware that stops me using other programs, or prevents me from playing a legitimately purchased game altogether - unlike PC DRM.

Re: Re: Re:

the pc and console versions of this game REQUIRE sign in to WindowsLive/XBL to play, you can do anything in them till you sign in, I have it on steam and 3 people I know have it on 360, honestly, you made it to easy...there are quite a few games out there you cant get to play without logging in.

now, they may have patched it so you can do SP without login but I REALLY doubt it, since the games more designed for co-op play then anything else.....

note: i wouldnt have bought it, but it was gifted to me by a good friend, who didnt realise the game had this kinda bs till after we started playing.....

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Hmmm... I can't see any reference there to needing to be online to play single player, and a quick Google search doesn't turn up anything regarding such a requirement on the 360. Remember I'm talking about single player only - I personally don't give a crap about online multiplayer, so I never use it and that's not the stuff I was referring to since it's logical to require an online account for multiplayer.

I'll have to take your word for it, but suffice to say that if I ever was in the market for that game, I'm not now, and there must have been some people left completely unable to play the thing when it was released. The fact that it's designed for co-op may have reduced the numbers of people buying it but unable to play because they weren't online, but I'm sure there were still some, which is the same problem I'm talking about regarding the PC titles.

But, this isn't a common thing, and I'm yet to come across this myself. There may well be DRM on console games, but such an online requirement is not a regular thing on console games that I've encountered, as I've said. Maybe your experience is different, but I find PC-based DRM far more restrictive and intrusive, which is why I'm no longer in the market for PC games.

I've bought SimCity, SC2000, SC3000, and SimCity 4 (and Rush Hour expansion pack)*. I love the series. But when I first heard "online only", well, sorry EA, but I'm passing on this one. SC4 may be dated and limited, but modders have been pushing the game's engine, and many will continue even after the new SimCity is released.

* I've actually bought SC4 four different times over the past 8 years, the latest being back in August via Steam.

Re:

Wait, isn't Steam's DRM scheme the same as EA/Origin's? Sure, Steam allows for local saves with remote caching, but if I unplug my 'net connection, I can't get into my Steam games. To me, that says "online only DRM".

I say all of this as a loyal Steam user. I've bought so much from them over the years, I'm somewhat appalled at how far I have to scroll to look through my library. My point is that /maybe/ online-only SC5 is no big deal after all.

Re: Re:

This isn't about the Origin service, which I'd presume has an offline mode like steams.

What this is about is that this game in particular stores your saves online regardless of if you want to play online or not. Which you'd know if you'd bothered to read the article.

What EA is trying to do is put every city in a "region" next to other players cities and then have interplay between those cities. Which is a neat idea but they are forcing it on you, there is no real single player (you'd have to take up every city in the region to do that) and if you are not online you can't save your game and will in a "short" time not be allowed to keep playing.

It's an attempt, much like Diablo 3, to mask an always on DRM system behind a game play system that does nothing but remove choice from the player.

Re: Re: Re:

This. I suspected them of masking a DRM scheme behind gameplay mechanics ever since i saw the first SimCity-5-Video that mentioned "social features".

But not only does it mask DRM, it also masks the DLC-milking that is behind "region play": They deliberately clamp down on moddability to make you pay for very cheap-to-make new "exciting" regions and core game features (subways, larger cities).

Neither of the first 3 requires "social play" and all of them require a decent map editor and large cities.

All the features seem to be driven by marketing considerations, as if they are geared to show up in "teaser trailers" and "previews". Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SimCity_%282013_video_game%29 The game already won numerous awards and the praise of various "magazines" - almost half a year before release. It's all part of the marketing machine - and sadly it works.

It shows that the people in charge do not care about making the best game they can, but the best cashcow they can get away with.

Already i am reading apologetic pieces about how a missing region editor somehow "adds value" by letting them release "high quality DLC regions" that are absolutely going to be worth 2$ per region or whatever it's going to be. Already i am hearing excuses how DRM-server-failures are no big deal and how i should go for a walk instead of complaining about it.

Unfortunately the kids will buy it - they don't know how good their game could be (like in the old days when every game could be modded and none required always-online) and how not boycotting the worst offenders in the DRM- and DLC-milking-business is going to make it worse in the future.

So the game is doomed to be a shallow yet commercially successful reminder that our favorite franchises will never reach their full potential - mostly because gaming has become a mainstream activity and the publishers don't have to rely on the enthusiasts anymore.

Re: Re:

Wait, isn't Steam's DRM scheme the same as EA/Origin's? Sure, Steam allows for local saves with remote caching, but if I unplug my 'net connection, I can't get into my Steam games. To me, that says "online only DRM".

I say all of this as a loyal Steam user. I've bought so much from them over the years, I'm somewhat appalled at how far I have to scroll to look through my library. My point is that /maybe/ online-only SC5 is no big deal after all.

-GeckoDeLimon

For being such a loyal Steam user you don't seem to have a full grasp of their service.

Steam has this little thing called offline mode which does...can anyone guess? No?
It allows you to play your games offline.

All you have to do is make sure Steam and your game are updated, load a game once online to finish the install, and activation then just restart Steam in offline mode to be able to play your collection offline. It can't be much simpler.

To me, that says "activation only DRM."

My point is that /maybe/ online-only SC5 can't be compaired to Steam after all.

The next big thing going on here!

Actually, if you take a step back and look at where this is going, it's going to be all the rage! Bear with me for a minute. We have a mouse that connects directly to the internet for updates (or whatever) which is probably going to lead to a keyboard that does the same thing. Maybe even a monitor. The next DRM on the roadmap is going to be that you will no longer need a computer, only a monitor, keyboard, and mouse that plug right into the wall (or a router). If you "buy" the game, someone at the company will 'install' the game onto the computer you're going to be using. Your peripherals will connect remotely to the next available box, and you can play all you want for as long as you want. You won't get the DVD of the game, won't need a computer to buy all the 'costly' hardware, and you won't have to listen to fans blowing to keep your system cool.

Yeah! This will be all the rage! It's not DRM! It's what all the 'cool' kids want nowadays. How could you possibly not want that??? You'd have to be a terrorist or a communist or something to not want that. And you don't want to be labeled a terrorist now, do you?

And if you internet connection goes down? Well, no need to worry. The company has your money so they can develop a new system that won't need internet connection in the future. Hell, by then, you won't need a keyboard, mouse or monitor. You can just calmly sit in your desk chair and *think* about playing. And no DRM there!!! Wow! DRM is almost a miracle!!!

Re: The next big thing going on here!

Re: The next big thing going on here!

Yeah! This will be all the rage! It's not DRM! It's what all the 'cool' kids want nowadays. How could you possibly not want that??? You'd have to be a terrorist or a communist or something to not want that. And you don't want to be labeled a terrorist now, do you?

Who would have known? My Certified Novell Netware Administrator cert is finally useful again! Thought I'd never be able to use that cert again.

3rd choice is as usual left out.

"So, very possibly, no lessons will be learned. ..."

Assuming the implicit notion that this is essential to life, THEN, BUY the game, BUT use the pirated version. Neither your conscience nor DRM will bother you! ... What's that? Some people will STILL not PAY for it? -- THEN, YOU supporters of piracy must stop providing them with excuses! There are legal and moral alternatives. Why are YOU, Tim Cushing, always presenting ONLY the same two failed views?

Re: Re: 3rd choice is as usual left out.

Not just immoral; suppose you do have this perfectly working piece of DRM that cannot be cracked. With it, you are essentially erasing all parts of copyright law that you don't like (anything related to fair use, and rights of the consumer, as well as copyright expiry, even if the latter seems to be 'never' ever since Disney).

But if YOU get to pick which parts of the law are applicable and which are not, why can't others?

Re: Re: Re: 3rd choice is as usual left out.

"But if YOU get to pick which parts of the law are applicable and which are not, why can't others?"

Because others didn't pay for the copyright laws...? Why would mere citizens believe that they get to participate in their own government? Didn't we pay to have that concept removed from the textbooks already? What are we paying our lobbyists for?!?

Re: 3rd choice is as usual left out.

So...you're saying that people should just suck it up, purchase a game with amazingly broken DRM, and then pirate a copy that someone else has patched and fixed just to play it "legally"? That sounds like a terrible idea, and here's why.

There's no way to EA to see that you're downloading that cracked copy after purchasing. If everyone with a problem with DRM did this, all EA sees is huge sales of their game. Thus, the next one will have the same if not worse DRM. And the next one. And the next one.

So what real, logical consumers will do is either A) Purchase the game, suck up the DRM, and try to play. B) Refuse to purchase the game because of the DRM. Or C) Pirate the game and thoroughly enjoy the single player offline, with no DRM.

Single player games = offline content

This is the main reason I will never purchase Diablo III. I enjoyed playing the first 2 games, and Blizzard was releasing high quality games. The reason I liked playing them? That was something I could play when I was without an internet connection. Now that all the games these days are requiring an internet connection to play, even for single-player games, I find myself passing on a lot of games I'd normally buy.

Re: Re: Single player games = offline content

Re: Re: Re: Single player games = offline content

Indeed, I got the pirate version (never played though lmao). I heard they took away the offline ability or that you have to log to authenticate (something like that). Never dug to see the truth behind those rumors though.

'EA (and companies like it) stop dumping crippled software on customers in hopes of making absolutely no discernible dent in piracy levels.'

how's about just giving people what they pay for, ie, the full release on a disk that is fully playable, even if in single player mode only, without the need to go online at all to download 100's of megs of further content purposefully left off just to force the internet connection thing, rather than continuously pissing customers off because they have lost their games, again?

One is never, ever, buy one without trying it first. Gaming reviews are gamed (pardon the pun). Any site that evaluates a game and gives an honest review that the game sucks is taken off the list of those eligible for early trials. This means that no gaming reviews can be trusted to give honest opinions, good or bad. I'll not buy products that way.

The second is never ever buy a game that requires on-line connections to play a single mode. The computer I game with does not connect to the internet. Full stop. It will remain that way as long as I use it for a gaming computer. No phone homes occur, no communication of data mining, and no spying on what I'm doing with it. Making it an on line requirement ensures either I will pirate it which in that case means absolutely no money to the gaming company or more likely I won't even bother with it. Either way comes up to be a no-sale.

Two particular companies that have earned my ire and hence never gets a sale are EA and Ubisoft. Both make games loaded with DRM, interested mainly in the franchise that results in a very short game at premium price and truthfully are not worth the money.

Why bother pirating it?

How about buying it and only playing the pirate version, a lot of people do that too. I guess it's on principal of not wanting to support their shitty method. In that case, why not forget playing altogether. Because, fuck them and we shouldn't be justifying their methods in the eyes of the business community, lawmakers, law enforcement and general community as a protest to thise very same methods.

Re:

There are young kids who don't know how to pirate and will try to share the DVD.

What decade are you living in? DVD? Sharing physical media? I'm sure this is number one on their list to "stop" with DRM.

This will stop them.

No it won't. Congratulations, wrong in one again.

Reddit is the tiny, tiny, vocal minority.

No it isn't. But even if this were to be true, who do you think people go to for word of mouth about whether a game is good or worth getting? Their grandmother? No, their geeky friends who frequent the intarwebs, such as these particular people that were on Reddit.

Do you know Diablo 3 sold over 8 million copies and has always online DRM that couldn't be cracked?

Congratulations on pointing out something that means nothing. So what? It sold about 7.5 million of those copies on name alone. If it wasn't saddled with online only it probably would have sold 10-12 million copies. Guess what else... the game sucked. Out of those 8 million "copies" about 15 people still play it that aren't korean gold farmers or chinese bots. How many "copies" do you think any expansion or sequel will sell? I bet you A LOT less.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

"Why would they keep enforcing DRM if it wasn't more profitable?"

Because they *think* it's more profitable. Stories like this are to inform them that not only does DRM not stop piracy, but that many of those "pirated" copies are just customers trying to use their legally purchased content in the first place.

I'm yet to see any real data that suggests that DRM has ever really reduced piracy, but I can point to many anecdotal stories of people abandoning the PC platform altogether due to DRM (the same platform that they complain is dropping drastically in sales numbers... hmmm....). Where's the proof that DRM works in either way intended?

"When people have the option to not pay many choose not to."

...and many do. Of course, you ignore those because the figures isn't 100%, right?

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re:

They do it for a reason. It works.

No it doesn't. Congratulations, wrong in one.

---No, your wrong. The idea of DRM is not to STOP piracy completely. It is to deter it for as long as possible. Therefore, DRM that keeps a cracked version from hitting the internet for even 2 days makes a HUGE difference in sales.

I for one will be buying the full version and enjoying the game while the rest of you "Wait for the crack" people will be sitting on your thumbs.

Re: Re: Re:

"Therefore, DRM that keeps a cracked version from hitting the internet for even 2 days makes a HUGE difference in sales."

I've been hearing this a lot recently. Does anyone have any stats to prove this, or is this just another one of those stories people tell themselves to feel "morally superior" to pirates, rather than actually buy something from a company that doesn't assume they're a thief?

I'd love to see some figures - especially some that compares the sales "rescued" from piracy vs. those who were going to buy a game but refused to participate in the DRM. Do those exist?

Re:

Do what for a reason? DRM? And does it? Can you cite a reference where it does?

"Open your mind. Understand you don't have all the numbers."

My mind's already open. And what about you? Do you have these numbers to back you up?

"There are young kids who don't know how to pirate and will try to share the DVD."

Do you have any idea what that sentence means? I don't, but unless you're trying to say that a kid doesn't know how to download a program, you're an idiot. That's basic knowledge! I'm pretty sure that if you give a kid a computer and tell him to rip a video off YouTube, I'm sure he'll find a way to do that in seconds. There's your "pirating."

"This will stop them."

Ha-ha, that's funny.

"Reddit is the tiny, tiny, vocal minority."

HAHAHAHAHA... You're an idiot.

"Do you know Diablo 3 sold over 8 million copies and has always online DRM that couldn't be cracked?"

And why should I care? If you're trying to sell me the game, that isn't working...

"It works."

[citation needed]

If you don't have anything to say, then get off the computer. You lost your ability to speak.

Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 17th, 2012 @ 2:17pm

EYou don't have all the numbers. I will make it easy
Simcity= $60.00
You pay 60 dollars to get a portion of a product.
When you buy a Big Mac meal are you forced to go online to get the fries.
Point is you should not be forced to have internet to enjoy something that is purchased. The internet is a haven for fraud.

Boycott

So, I already boycott any product with the name Ubisoft on it. EA and Blizzard have recently been added to the list of publishers I will no longer support by buying anything from them.

And by boycott, I also include pirating the same products. I refuse to even pirate it because I don't want to give them any more reason to claim "piracy". There are plenty of decent games out there to buy at good prices that aren't full of DRM and/or Online only requirements.

Also, I refuse to use that crapware EA is pushing as a competitor to Steam.

I get EA is going to shove a 'multiplayer' experience into any game whether it needs it or not, but taking what was traditionally a single player game and forcing everyone into the experience is garbage. There's no reason I can't build a city in the safety of my own hard drive.

Not only that there's going to be some serious backlash when the huge majority of fans find out. In fact I almost guarantee this will hurt sales.

The nay-sayers are correct. DRM, in any form, sucketh mightily and with great vigor. I, for one, have NO intention of purchasing ANYTHING that uses DRM, games, video, you name it. If the MAFIAA wants my money they damn well better find some way of giving me what I want at a decent price, when I want it. END OF LINE.

Stupid article is stupid

I dont like DRM as much as the next person. But to read "and funneling the users through its horrendous Origin "service." in this article showed how stupid the author is. How is Origin any different than Steam? Both are DRM platforms that lock the users games into a platform DRM? If one is bad the other is too.

I have no disagreement that always online is a stupid idea, but here we have another Steam fanboy writing an article. How did you get your job?

Re: Re: Stupid article is stupid

Origin is Horrible

Why do I need to create a separate EA Origin account to play a game on my PS3? I already have a PSN account - and that should be enough. My son's online EA account thinks he is under 13 - he isn't - so won't let him play EA games online. There is no way to override this and I don't ever recall entering his birth date in - leaving me to create another PSN and EA Origin account.

Beyond DRM and piracy

The more I think about it the more piracy looks to be outdated as well. There is so much choice, and it's growing everyday, for music, games etc that have no drm, or stupid pricing, that even chasing down a pirate version of something is more effort than it's often worth.

Right now I just buy the stuff that doesn't stuff me around. The rest can rot.

Piracy

Microsoft's own engineers put the priacy problem the best. You do not have to stop some of the pirates, or most of the pirates. You have to stop ALL of the pirates. Because if one person can break the DRM he can then upload a DRAM free copy and EVERYONE gets it. Do the game companies really think they can stop everyone??

Me and my cousin often LAN together. When we heard of this game - both being fans of Simcity - you can imagine our elation of a multiplayer simcity game. And now, with the news of the constant DRM-thing, we will not be buying it. We will be playing it of course! Heavy DRM has not stopped us from playing other games and it wont stop us from playing this one. But we will be pirating it as we have many other games which failed to allow us to play together - often after we bought legal copies - so I hope EA will take me pirating the game as a personal 'fuck you' to them, because that's what it is.

Been meaning to rant on this for a while

The game itself looks completely underwhelming, so there is no temptation at all to put up with their DRM.

The "cities" are about a 20th of the scale of the current suburb I live in, and about 1/100000th of the greater metropolitan area. It's more like Sim Block than Sim City.

It's lacking basic transport features and genuine modability which kept the previous game alive. Modding has obviously been subverted in favor of DLC and is going to be restricted to make nice looking houses. You'll have to pay for anything useful.

Because you're now part of an online region with other players, your city is dependent on how they manage their city, so expect lots of griefers and penisvilles. It also means you have no terraforming functionality, which has been a core part of the game since it's inception for reasons that should be obvious.

Frankly, the game is destined to fail, and good riddance. The game design was obviously cooked up by a marketing department. I shake my head in disbelief when their developers enthuse about features that are nothing more than incentives not to buy.

I was hoping that new SimCity may lead to an update of old classics like Streets of Sim City. But thanks to this crippling DRM, I hope the game is a miserable flop. I just keep shifting where I give my money to in the gaming industry. The Ubisofts and EAs of the world don't get it anymore; it's the indie developers who don't ruin the games I buy with "always online" nonsense or other malware/DRM and limited activations and a bunch of other garbage.

It was really painful to me to hear that SC will have always-online DRM. It's one of the games I loved in my childhood, I was so looking forward to it. I'll have to skip it just like I skipped Diablo 3.

Originally they actually stated that the online check would only happen when you start the game and you would be able to play offline for an indefinite time if disconnected. I guess plans change. If they store everything server-side, it may mean the game will never be cracked :(

The internet isn't ready

Online only DRM depresses me slightly, until the internet is available "everywhere" we shouldn't be restricted to having to be connected to it.

I play games on the tube, trains, on holiday without wifi and many other places where I don't have internet access.

Some of the most successful gaming devices of the past few years (iPhone/iPad), don't require an internet connection to work, neither do the major consoles. Why should be users be forced into this? Haven't they heard of laptops?

Re: The internet isn't ready

There's the other end of the scale of course - if a game depends on an internet connection, that invariably means it also depends on a server on the other end. Have a connection but their server is down? Can't play. They decide you need 1.5Gb patch X, and their server decides you can't log on till you have it? If you're on 3G or other slow network - can't play. They decide to implement regional controls and you're not in the country you bought it from? Can't play. They've decided that the game's no longer profitable (and they eventually will)? Can't play.

Eventually, these problems mount up and it's not worth buying at all. One of the few ways to get the message across is to do just that, except they usually ignore such messages in favour of "sales dropped so we need more DRM because piracy!".

The internet isn't ready

Online only DRM depresses me slightly, until the internet is available "everywhere" we shouldn't be restricted to having to be connected to it.

I play games on the tube, trains, on holiday without wifi and many other places where I don't have internet access.

Some of the most successful gaming devices of the past few years (iPhone/iPad), don't require an internet connection to work, neither do the major consoles. Why should be users be forced into this? Haven't they heard of laptops?

Love SimCity series to bits and this state saddens me. No not the Origin part. i have it and it's um... 'fine'. But the cloud game saving part? thats classic 'cloud done wrong' again. Like that mouse manufacturer who charged 100 bucks for a 'plug & play' mouse.

It's enough that Cities XL is crippled. Wont waste money on this garbage until this is un-crippled like they atleast tried with Cities XL. Which ended in limbo anyway due to stupid stupid ideas being too hard to overcome.

Seems to me Sim-games are heading the way of X-Com: Companies try to 'improve' the basic formula and completely waste the game in the process.

Cya in 10 years. maybe then there will be a good sim-game. I hope i'm just talking here...

I would be ok with the game if it was released free to play then online only. Make your money some other way, what's the need of charging people $60 a box for a game that you're requiring to be on the internet. Find some way to make that up. I think I'm utterly done paying for a game that has such requirements that require it to be online. I don't mind paying a sub fee for a game I couldn't feel like I could live without, but to pay an additional $60 for the game you don't even own? Never again. I bought eve online for $5 and I'm likely to get bored before the 30 days are up, and if I really loved the game, I'd much rather pay $15 a month for massive updates daily and a game designed to be entirely MMO than a single player game that required me to be online. Sim City? They want to give you the illusion of single-player while actually trying to create an online game. They want to have it both ways, and it's going to destroy them. At least Diablo 3 was created with the intent to be played with 4 people and to encourage that kind of behavior. Sim City is a single player game that happens to have online components. I don't think this will go as well as the head people at EA think.

Re:

"I would be ok with the game if it was released free to play then online only."

EA aren't going to do that, since they have Sim City Social on Facebook, and the full blown game isn't going to be filled with pointless grinding tasks like that is. Judging by some of the annoying design decisions they've made for the transparently obvious reason of annoying people until they pay money, that's not a bad thing.

But I agree, if the game had an accessible offline single player component, or was designed as a multiplayer only experience, there would be few complaints. Expect people to pay full price then restrict when, where and how they can play the game? That's asking for trouble.

Pinstar

My biggest gripe isn't nessicarily the online only aspect (which is a pretty massive gripe in of itself) it is the lack of a region/map editor.

That screams "Disabled functionality to sell DLC". The developers, to make the main region, HAD to have some sort of tools to create the terrain. With a little cleanup, those same tools could be put into the game in a manor that average users could make it.

The ONLY reason I can see why they don't put region editing in the game is that they intend to sell new regions as DLC...something that NOBODY will buy if people can just make their own regions to their liking.

Hiding behind the "Everyone has to play the same region for networking to work" doesn't hold up, since you could do the same thing by sharing the same user-created region between players if you wanted to do a multiplayer game in a custom region.

We are about 3-4 DLC packs away from returning to Sim City 4 functionality... if they even bother to give us back a terrain editor at all.

Oh and that's Base Simcity 4... if you count all the mods that the open nature of SimCity 4 allowed, I don't think this SimCity will ever get close.

to be fair to the developers, they're using drm thing to combat piracy, as far as i know. drm is a pain in the ass and it would prevent me from purchasing a game sometimes, but i can understand their reason to protect their profit margin on their hard work.

DRM's money

"We will allow you to play for as long as we can preserve your game state. This will most likely be minutes."

"I will pay to play for as long as you can preserve your online game servers. This will most likely be minutes. Then I will expect a full refund of my 'licensed' cash (license terms on cash state that cash is only available while game is available... so when my game goes down, you give my cash back... got it).

A few years back I spent close to $100 on some "Collectors Edition" of some game I can't even remember. I had issues getting the game to install on my computer and it kept asking me to re-install, until finally I was told I wouldn't be allowed to install it anymore because I had used all 5 of them due to some stupid DRM... Never got to try the game, never paid for another EA game ever again...

DRM

I was really looking forward to buy this game, so many improvements over SC4. But this DRM thingy... I always played SimCity games as single player, just me, my city, and lots of time. I'll just pirate this babe if there will be no offline mode, and EA will never see my money.

not listening

I don't think EA truly cares about the long term success of the SimCity franchise. I will not purchase this latest reboot.
I am perfectly satisfied with SC4, even if it CTDs once a day.
The lack of SUBWAYS and REAL HIGHWAYS is the biggest let down for me. I have purchased every single SimCity core pack and addon since SimCity2000, even doing my first building mods with the Urban Renewal Kit.

I wonder if the developers have truly been listening to the SimCity community. Yes, I will admit, multiplayer is an option that does appeal to me, but so do SUBWAYS and REAL HIGHWAYS. Even more so, my true love of the game concerns neighborhood deals and neighborhood commuting. What concerns me most is the unrealistic direction this reboot is steering the franchise.

The core of any good game is the actual game play. Graphics are just eyecandy, and should only be used as icing on an already moist Velvet cake.

My decision may be a bit premature, but until I see some more actual game play, or even BETA TEST, I think my decision stands. SC4 for Life.

Re: not listening

I've played beta and it's not like the previous simcity games at all. If you like to make large cities focusing on transportation, design and zoning, (like the previous simcity games) you will probably be disappointed in Simcity 5.

It's a very small area to build in, with many limitations. Like a child playing in a sandbox that can't be designed. No map editing or creation like in simcity 4.

It's been simplified so that 10 year olds can play: it reminded me of City Life where I had to make sure certain types of people had certain types of jobs near their house. It's about the people more than building.

I purchased EA's "Spore" when it was new, and after the problems their DRM caused me I tried to return it, but because it was "opened" I had to contact EA directly to return it, but they refused to allow me to return it even after citing their 30-day "free of defect" warranty.

The thing is, if I had pirated Spore instead of paid for it I would have had the game sooner and would have had a fully functional DRM-free version. I then asked them if I could just download a pirated version of the game I paid for since, you know, I paid for it. Ironically, they consider that to be identical to piracy. You'd think they would appreciate someone who likes to support the developers, you know?

So why should I pay for something even less functional like their new SimCity? I wouldn't touch that game with a 39 and a half foot pole.

Suggestions for games unencumbered by DRM & online requirements?

Can anyone suggest fun games that arenít encumbered by DRM and online requirements? I want to buy some decent stuff, just put it on my computers and have it ready to go for when the kids come to visit. I might even try to play them myself.

My three home machines are kept at a rather high level so they should run anything suggested well enough. But I love to tinker with the machines, and I perform some sort of upgrade on all of them at least every year, so most any kind of machine hash-check would turn into a real pain.

Can anyone suggest good games unencumbered by DRM & online requirements?

Can anyone suggest fun games that arenít encumbered by DRM and online requirements? I want to buy some decent stuff, just put it on my computers and have it ready to go for when the kids come to visit. I might even try to play them myself.

My three home machines are kept at a rather high level so they should run anything suggested well enough. But I love to tinker with the machines, and I perform some sort of upgrade on all of them at least every year, so most any kind of machine hash-check would turn into a real pain.

Have you thought

Have you ever thought that maybe they HAVE to have it online only because if they don't it would be pirated to the point of non-existence?

All of you say you are going to wait and pirate it, but in doing so, you are destroying the very thing you are trying to get.

I doubt that pirates are going to successfully disable the online only portions. The game has been designed around that factor. To remove it would be like removing the processor from your computer...it wont be worth shit.

stop the sniveling, buy the game, enjoy the game. Enjoy the fact that it wasn't designed for Xbox/ps3 first then ported over to PC, which it very well could have been.

Re: Have you thought

"All of you say you are going to wait and pirate it, but in doing so, you are destroying the very thing you are trying to get."

What about those of us who say they would have bought it, but the online only requirement makes it unusable or too restricted for the asking price? If I wanted a restricted Sim City I'll only play online, I'll play the free Facebook game. Needing to be online doesn't help me play the game on a bus, plane or make me suddenly want to blow craploads more money on hotel wifi just because I had the audacity to wish to play a game I own while travelling. I'll stick to what I already have, thanks - legally purchased.

"stop the sniveling, buy the game, enjoy the game."

No. I'll refuse to buy it, buy from a competitor and await to see which dumbass scheme EA will try that makes the game worse and less attractive to potential buyers, all the time blaming "piracy".

I Concure

I could have written this article!

It seems that EA is TRYING to lose paying customers.

Drop the internet requirement, non-hard drive saves and the optical drive destroying software (EA games with DRM have broke two of my optical drives just by installing their games) or I will not buy this game.

I have played beta and its ok on its own, but not with all the limitations EA is giving it.

If they don't put out a simple, single player game (like simcity 4 was) I won't even miss this game in my collection.

It's a very simple child-focused game that may have complex programming (like EA Claims and I wouldn't doubt) but Building and designing gameplay is very simple compared to simcity 4.

I wouldn't doubt the work they put into the programming because I could follow the ambulance to each house picking up hurt people and other complex coding details. But the rest of the gameplay was so limited.

Now I only played beta for about 4 one-hour times, but it's their own demise to limit the beta so much because I will base whether or not I will buy the game off of the beta.

I was disappointed by the gameplay AND the DRM, online, cloud saves...SO definitely not buying this game.

Multi Play without Multi Pay

This looks like a great interactive game. I really want to play with my 2 boys (10 & 8), but it looks like I'll have to pony up $240. No thanks.

Maybe if you provided a reasonable use model for families like the old days of "up to" licenses, you wouldn't have so much piracy in the first place. (and don't give me that techno bs of multiple access to accounts, etc. You're just being greedy.

SO I will vote with my wallet and now instead of $80 you get ZERO, NADA, NOTHING.

Bad recipe, bad meal

Failing beta, failing download on release day, DRM sauce forcing one to be online to play, incredibly small city size, a software company unable to anticipate server load on release day, I'm out of here. If I don't get my money back, I will never again buy EA. It's that simple, really. I've got Cities XL, it's not 100% as good as SimCity was expected to be, but it works and that makes it 150% better.